222 and 4198

[mshelton]

I know back in it's heyday a lot of benchrest shooters got away from 4198 in the deuce because it doesn't run through a powder thrower well but other than that is there any reason not to use it in a 222 nowadays.

I guess what I'm asking is, powder throwing aside, is there anything that much better for the 222 (normal 50-55gn bullets) than 4198?

 

[357Mag]

MS -

Howdy !

Yeh, there is. Reknowned benchrest shooter Fred Sinclair advised me to use 4895 in .222 ( 52 -53gr bullets ). Back when he made that
recommendation, IMR 4895 would have been the prevailing version. Fred held a world record or 2 for small group, and knew his way around .222,
Deuc MAg; and ( olde tyme ) 6X47.


Best of luck in your endeavors !


With regards,
357Mag

 

[L.Sherm]

IMF 4895 worked great in my 222 rem. mag and benchmark&
&V133 worked pretty good also

 

[DogBuster]

H322

 

[MrMajestic]

VV N133!

 

[LHSmith]

There are (2) 4198's Hodgdon H-4198 and IMR4198. In the early 70's, my 700 Varmint Special shot so well with the IMR that it eventually led me into Benchrest. I could not get the Hodgedon to shoot near as well. Today I use N-133, but want to revisit H-4895, because of 133's being finicky.

 

[stacy]

I have to 222 they like AA-2460 and H -322 really well with 52/53gr bullets

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

I'm on about my fourth .222 4198 has worked well for me in that caliber. But overall nothing has worked better than RL 7.

 

[357Mag]

MS -

Howdy !

MR. Majestic LHSmith and LSherm have a great point, about use of VV133 in .222 .

With the debut of the PPCs as the new benchrest darling, people walked away from shooting the .222; in droves.
VV133 would be a great fit for the .222, as might other powders w/ BR-range burn rates; like 8208, H322, Benchmark; et al.


With regards,
357Mag

 

[kolar55]

And don't forget about the new LT-32. Gives good velocities and accuracy-just the old T32 from years ago. N133 makes 'em go too and also shoots well.

 

[mshelton]

Well thanks for the information, been using 4198 with pretty good results but I've got some of the powders mentioned, 4895, H322 some Scot 322, and I've been looking for an excuse to buy a pound or 3 of the new LT32.

Much appreciated

 

[kolar55]

With all the info above being true and correct, there is nothing wrong with 4198. It's just that powders like N133 and LT-32 flow through a powder measure really nice. Another one that has worked very well for me is 748. N133 is probably the cleanest of the bunch though.

 

[bheadboy]

Mike Walker, designer of the 222 family, swore by and shot competition with 4895 and Bl C (748)

he shot very vvery well, also loaned his rifles and loads to Warren Page who also shot very well

Bob

 

[mshelton]

Just started initial testing and figured I'd post it here. The disclaimer is that this was all brand new Lapua brass right out of the box (with the exception of the 4198 load) with seating pressure varying quite a bit so the numbers aren't dead gospel but may help some and give a starting point. Rifle used was a Sako varmint 461 with a 24" barrel and the bullets were Berger varmint 52g. Temp was 47deg, which I know played a large part in the velocities. Other than the 4198 these are mfg published loads so they are all pretty mild, I was just looking to get some numbers to base further testing on.

First my normal load of 21g IMR4198 in 3 and 4 times fired brass, first shot was cold clean bore.
3254 - 3280 - 3295

H322 21.1g
3028 - 3024 - 3030

B322 Scot Brigadier 21.1g
3042 - 3033 - 3049

LT32 22.1 (no published loads but have seen reports of 24+)
3120 - 3144 - 3132

N201 22.8 (hotter than the Norma published load but proved disappointing)
2872 - 2877 - 2891

With the brass being what it was and the temp at 48, I didn't pay much attention to groups, though the 4198 did act as usual and print well. Looks like the LT32 from a velocity standpoint may be worth looking into a little more. I'll publish what I find out later.

 

[jreedtn]

22gr of 8208 xbr makes my sako l46 punch bugholes with 52gr bergers.

 

[LCazador]

With all the different opinions in the posts listed thus far, the 222 pretty much shoots great with just about anything you put through it! That's what makes it the great cartridge that it is. Too bad the 223 gets a lot more credit!

 

[mshelton]

223 gets no credit in my book nor the books of the people I shoot with, I can say it's the one chambering no one in my group would own.

 

[bheadboy]

mho, the 222m will do everything the 223 will do and do it better and more accurately,

too bad the m16 and its brass availability caused the fading of the 222m as a great round.

Bob

 

[sbranden]

I'm pretty sure Walt Berger got himself into the hall of fame with H335 and the 222 (and probably 52gr bullets). So that's another good powder for you to play with. BLC2 another. And yes I'm sure Benchmark would probably work, and on and on and on. But IMR-4198 is still what I came back to in the end. 21.0, with a 40 V-MAX and CCI 400's rather than the Rem 7 1/2 BR's that I had first started out with when shooting the 50 & 52 weight bullets. The 40's with this load are in the 3300-3400 fps range giving the 'ol 222 another 50yds maybe of good flat point-n-click shooting!

 

[Kiwi222]

I am a recent 222 convert, CZ Ebony Edition 1:14 twist. Shooting Sierra MatchKing 52 grain with 20gr 4198 (ADR2206) and Winchester primers. 0.5" groups@ 100 yards off a bipod and rear sand bag. I have not chrono'd as yet.

I am also looking to trial Barnes TTSX 53 grain as a small deer cartridge (fallow only) but will see how they stablize.

The Sierra effectively penetrates 18mm of plywood, then 260mm of ballistic jelly when fired from my sons .223, and still retains around 32 grains of its original projectile weight.

wow this is FUN

Ian